massfanonfandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:Citadel 2
Why would the climate be based on anything other than a Utopian city? That's just plain stupid, especially since krogan come from radioactive Tuchanka; Yes, they would survive, but it would be uncomfortable and illogical. Plus, Alaska (you wouldn't believe how warm the summers are) has a varying climate, unlike Noveria. Although my biggest problem is stated above, having regions is just stupid. And it's unlikely a species would have a place where a majority of them live; It would vary significantly. Also, I don't recommend making a post-ME3 article yet. It is unclear if theses endings are real, due to the bitching about the endings and the new "leaked" DLC--Only the faithless will perish, but those without cannot be punished. 05:00, March 18, 2012 (UTC) : Plus, how in the hell did the quarians become the leaders of the project? That would be like Albania somehow managing to fix the European Union's financial ills... -- Gnostic 07:31, March 18, 2012 (UTC) :: Yea, we just don't recommend post-Reaper invasion articles that have a large impact yet. Yea, we are not forcing you to stop (except this article, it's just not happening), but it's not a very smart idea to be doing at the moment.--Only the faithless will perish, but those without cannot be punished. 17:03, March 18, 2012 (UTC) i find some of the concepts here inherently contradictory to my Crucible Era, therefore I request it not be added to it . .. although i find the ideas interesting, I do not find them very practical . . . ralok 19:54, March 20, 2012 (UTC) :Not all Fanon on this wiki exists within the same dimension. While you may write something, others may write something else. That'll make two different fanon storylines completely (Or partially) separate from each other. Chaoswolf75 18:09, March 21, 2012 (UTC) I do not know it if was the authors' original intention, but categories were added by another user. ralok 19:57, March 20, 2012 (UTC) I feel like we should just delete it and inform the two brothers...Yea, Ralok, this article was created by two people. They don't seem to ever head any warning or even pay attention anymore. I cannot ban them forever, I have no real reason other than that they annoy the hell out of me. I may not be a perfect writer, but sometimes they get ridiculous.Only the faithless will perish, but those without cannot be punished. 22:18, March 20, 2012 (UTC)\ : Actually, if they are under 13 years old, we can ban them for being underage. Or at least that's what Bluethunder has told me. Do we know how old they are? -- Gnostic 08:13, March 21, 2012 (UTC) :That would be because it is illegal for people under the age of 13 to share personal information on the internet . . . ralok 13:05, March 21, 2012 (UTC) One of them is older than the other. I believe the younger is thirteen, while the other is in his late teens. However, we actually can't ban them for being thirteen. The sign up for wikia and all wikis is thirteen, and so as long as we don't seem them writing articles of explicit material, we can do nothing.-- Only the faithless will perish, but those without cannot be punished. 15:06, March 21, 2012 (UTC) :If one of them signed up before he turned thirteen you can technically block both, on the grounds that one broke the law and the other aided in the act... Of course, that would be a huge jerk thing to do. On my wikis I prefer to use the justification of "disruptive content". ralok 15:17, March 21, 2012 (UTC) : If someone is under 13, it is our duty to ban them *until they're 13*. Chaoswolf75 18:09, March 21, 2012 (UTC) ::It's a moot point. They're both at least 13. -- Gnostic 20:12, March 21, 2012 (UTC) :::Oh well. *Lowers rifle* Chaoswolf75 20:15, March 21, 2012 (UTC) I support deletion, too many logical leaps and headscratchers . . . ralok 18:20, March 21, 2012 (UTC)